Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ELS
Humans do not "experience things" at the atomic or sub-atomic level.

If you mean directly experience, that would be true, but clearly we do indirectly experience them and they are demonstrably real. I guess your point is to show the unreliability, indeed almost the unreality, of our experiences. Since they are central to the antecedent of Arthur's argument, you're saying drawing conclusions about what must be real would be a mistake.

322 posted on 02/16/2003 7:37:52 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies ]


To: edsheppa
I guess your point is to show the unreliability, indeed almost the unreality, of our experiences.

No, my point was just the opposite. Considering that trying to observe phenomena at the atomic or sub-atomic level affects what is being observed, there is much unreliability and "unreality". How do we know what is actually happening when we aren't "observing" what is happening? We know far less about reality at the atomic or sub-atomic level than we do at the level which we experience things (directly).

572 posted on 02/18/2003 1:43:50 PM PST by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson